nimble Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 (edited) I have been familiar with Rand's manner of looking at love, and then I got into Robert Nozick and I like his version much better. I always wondered what kept people from moving to an objectively better person when that person came into your life, using Rand's way of thinking. For instance, why get married when you know that most likely the person you are with is not the best person in the world, and if you meet that best person why not love them more than your spouse and get a divorce to be with them? With Nozick's idea of love, he describes love as being a state in which your personal well being is tied directly to their personal well being. When your loved one is hurt, so are you, and when your loved one is doing well, so are you. Nozick tries to explain that attraction comes from holding similar values and appreciating that which makes up the other, but in the long run you don't "upgrade" because love changes you in a sense. To really explain this I need to use an example. Let's say the only criteria you care about when picking a significant other is by looking at their smile. So the initial attraction comes because they have a really good smile and/or smile a lot. Because you value the smile you love/like her more and more. Eventually you grow so attached to her that you no longer care about smiles in general (or objectively) you just like her smile. So that even if someone comes along who smiles more or has a better smile, you don't just immediately trade up to a "better model." If this is how Rand describes love too, then by all means explain it to me. And if not, I would like to argue about the proper way to view love. I just remember Dagny "upgrading" all the time from Francisco to Hank to Galt, who she ultimately stayed with since he was the apex of what man could be. Edited June 7, 2006 by nimble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathanar Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 If this is how Rand describes love too, then by all means explain it to me. And if not, I would like to argue about the proper way to view love. I just remember Dagny "upgrading" all the time from Francisco to Hank to Galt, who she ultimately stayed with since he was the apex of what man could be. I'd say Francisco gave her plenty reason in her eyes, to move on to someone else, and Hank was still married and cheating on his wife after all, so not exactly the pinnacle of man like Galt. Another aspect of the relationship between them was that Francisco and Hank both understood that Galt was a better man then them (for her) and approved of Dagny going to him. It wasn't exactly a case of just upgrading because the smile was better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 I don't see how this notion of the happiness of the person you love being tied to your own is incompatible with the Objectivist view on this. It is of great, selfish importance to me that such an important part of my life is happy, as it gives me greater enjoyment in turn, and in that way objectively improves the quality of my own life. Besides, there are a lot more things to a relationship than just the principles you share together. I think that a significant portion of the things you truly love about someone may be meaningless to most others; and furthermore the shared life you have together adds immeasurable value to the relationship (given that it's a very good relationship alread). Just because someone else may fit your notion of an ideal partner slightly better does not mean that you should immediately throw everything else away to pursue this new relationship. Having said that, I think when you talk about the more serious types of commitment it would be a big mistake if you pursue this with someone who is not very close to your ideal romantic partner. If this assumption holds I do not see much, if any, good reasons to ever leave your partner unless one of the two drastically changes their direction in life. Obviously if you start a relationship with someone who is good, but doesn't really match what you envision your ideal man or woman to be like, then the chances are much larger that you find a better candidate in the future. But this scenario is not a result from the standard Objectivist position, as far as I can discern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 (edited) Nimble, This earlier post may be of interest. It's a somewhat similar topic. Edited June 7, 2006 by softwareNerd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 I don't think Objectivism says much about staying with one partner. Some people value the fact that they have known somebody intimately for a long time and would never consider ending that kind of relationship. Others may, to put it crudely, want an upgrade. It is a choice that depends on personal context, but I don't immediately see any conflict between Nozick's ideas and Rand's (so long as Nozick isn't saying that everyone in every case should apply his ideas). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Nimble, do you have a link to Nozick's statements on this subject? It might help to read the source material. From your description of his ideas, it sounds like they may have some merit, and may not conflict at all with Ayn Rand's views on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimble Posted June 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Sorry I cannot provide a link, I am pretty sure he keeps his stuff under tight copyright protection (although he is dead now). I can tell you the book it came from though. It is called Life Examined or Examined Life I think, it is one of those two. He goes on to make a business analogy. If love is a trading of values then like any business transaction businesses seek the best deal (most value). Once they establish some sort of relationship with the other businesses they trade with, they tend to deal more and more with that business rather than others. Eventually each business gets to know what the other wants so that they start specializing for their business partner. And once they become so specialized to their partner, a merger seems like the only suitable action (marriage). I kind of liked that analogy, but arguments from analogy almost never hold, so it's just a means to think about the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathanar Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 If love is a trading of values then like any business transaction businesses seek the best deal (most value). Once they establish some sort of relationship with the other businesses they trade with, they tend to deal more and more with that business rather than others. Eventually each business gets to know what the other wants so that they start specializing for their business partner. And once they become so specialized to their partner, a merger seems like the only suitable action (marriage). I kind of liked that analogy, but arguments from analogy almost never hold, so it's just a means to think about the subject. I do not see that as being quite right. There is more than the best deal, there is the ethics involved. Two businesses might make decent profits off each other but have vastly different work cultures and ethics and when merged, lots of troubles ensue. Love and marriage is about a sharing of values, you should start dating someone because you admire and respect their values and their ethics, not because the sex is good or their smile pleases your eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimble Posted June 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 The smile was a simplistic example to illustrate the point. Nozick doesn't actually mean smiles are the end all trait to have, in fact I was the one who came up with the smiles bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts